The disorder of homosexuality

[spencelo]

The Church uses that term in a philosophical way. The attraction is not ordered toward the good. Now, whether the few, or many, accept this truth in no way changes it.

I’m more interested in seeing whether this so-called “truth” can be defended, in a “philosophical way.”

What exactly is same-sex attraction ordered towards that is not good? What is the “good?” Is the “good” determined by God? Is the claim that same-sex attraction is not ordered towards the goods merely the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality? If so, how can the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality be defended “in a philosophical way?” Is there any good evidence that God, if he exists, disapproves of homosexuality?

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m more interested in seeing whether this so-called “truth” can be defended, in a “philosophical way.”

What exactly is same-sex attraction ordered towards that is not good? What is the “good?” Is the “good” determined by God? Is the claim that same-sex attraction is not ordered towards the goods merely the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality? If so, how can the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality be defended “in a philosophical way?” Is there any good evidence that God, if he exists, disapproves of homosexuality?

Spence,

Make your bed, be careful when you cross the street, eat your spinach…

You are dealing with a bunch of people who believe that the Church is

The Body of Christ/Christ is Head
Christ is God/man

The Church is the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known…

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth…

The Church says…homosexuallity is disordered…just read what it says and that is it…there is no discussion…

be sure and brush your teeth before you go to bed…good night…

 

[bilop]

I’m more interested in seeing whether this so-called “truth” can be defended, in a “philosophical way.”

What exactly is same-sex attraction ordered towards that is not good? What is the “good?” Is the “good” determined by God? Is the claim that same-sex attraction is not ordered towards the goods merely the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality? If so, how can the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality be defended “in a philosophical way?” Is there any good evidence that God, if he exists, disapproves of homosexuality?

The ends of sex are twofold 1) uniative - the bonding of the married couple, 2) procreative - the begetting of children. For sex to be licit it must meet both ends.

Homosexual activity fails this test because it does not involve a married couple so 1) is right out, and it can’t be procreative.

Likewise:

Married sex with artificial contraception fails test 2), it is uniative but not procreative.

In vitro fertizilation fails test 1), it is procreative but not uniative.

God Bless

 

[spencelo]

The ends of sex are twofold 1) uniative - the bonding of the married couple, 2) procreative - the begetting of children. For sex to be licit it must meet both ends.

Homosexual activity fails this test because it does not involve a married couple so 1) is right out, and it can’t be procreative.

Likewise:

Married sex with artificial contraception fails test 2), it is uniative but not procreative.

In vitro fertizilation fails test 1), it is procreative but not uniative.

God Bless

Homosexuality activity can involve a married couple, because in this country, same-sex couples can get married in a number of states. Moreover, what about infertile straight couples? They seem to fail test 2).

 

[CopticChristian]

Homosexuality activity can involve a married couple, because in this country, same-sex couples can get married in a number of states. Moreover, what about infertile straight couples? They seem to fail test 2).

Spence,

You are comparing and contrasting beliefs as seen in what we believe to be “the Kingdom of God” with the world…if you pick up a Bible…you will read

“repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand” and that means “change your mind”=repent

You will also read “be ye not conformed to this world” and that includes what is happening in some states…so what…

St. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo in Africa…Hippo was over run by Arians as I recall…and the OHCAC survived…no Hippo…still have OHCAC…

You cannot compare the states with a Kingdom…

 

[LisaA]

Homosexuality activity can involve a married couple, because in this country, same-sex couples can get married in a number of states. Moreover, what about infertile straight couples? They seem to fail test 2).

Catholicism does not recognize homosexual “marriage.” Certain elements in a marriage must be present before it can be recognized by the Church. Remember Spence, we aren’t here to argue that you aren’t the world’s greatest expert on your own opinion. You are. But your opinion does not overcome the Church’s teaching.

Infertility does not mean the marriage is invalid. The couple is open to life (by not contracepting etc) and that some couples cannot conceive is not determinative.

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

Except again, I don’t believe my questions have been answered – but feel free to prove me wrong. Btw, I don’t ask people to “respect” my viewpoints and assertions, but if anyone wishes to challenge them, I’d be happy to consider their arguments (or nonarguments).

People don’t tend to engage in debate posters whose viewpoints they cannot respect, due to lack of due diligence in researching the already-answered questions. So respect is key to whether you will continue to have any of your postings seriously addressed, given the ratio between the work others have put in and the amount you have put in.

Prove me wrong!

You have already been proven wrong, repeatedly. You just refuse to acknowledge having lost the battle.

 

[spencelo]

Catholicism does not recognize homosexual “marriage.” Certain elements in a marriage must be present before it can be recognized by the Church. Remember Spence, we aren’t here to argue that you aren’t the world’s greatest expert on your own opinion. You are. But your opinion does not overcome the Church’s teaching.

Infertility does not mean the marriage is invalid. The couple is open to life (by not contracepting etc) and that some couples cannot conceive is not determinative.

Lisa

Can you provide some answers to the following questions I raised before? Here they are again: What exactly is same-sex attraction ordered towards that is not good? What is the “good?” Is the “good” determined by God? Is the claim that same-sex attraction is not ordered towards the goods merely the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality? If so, how can the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality be defended “in a philosophical way?” Is there any good evidence that God, if he exists, disapproves of homosexuality?

 

[spencelo]

People don’t tend to engage in debate posters whose viewpoints they cannot respect, due to lack of due diligence in researching the already-answered questions.

Do the Catholics on here “respect” the viewpoint that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, that God doesn’t exist, or that Catholicism extols irrationality? I suspect that many Catholics on here, including yourself, engage these viewpoints often even though they aren’t “respected.”

So respect is key to whether you will continue to have any of your postings seriously addressed, given the ratio between the work others have put in and the amount you have put in.

Like I said before, if posters are willing to put forth arguments, I’m willing to consider them. But hunting for posts that may or may not have addressed my questions isn’t something I’m gonna do. If you think my questions have been answered, quote the answers, or just answer them yourself. Stop being lazy

You have already been proven wrong, repeatedly. You just refuse to acknowledge having lost the battle.

I think we may have very different notions of what “being proven wrong” means

 

[CopticChristian]

Can you provide some answers to the following questions I raised before? Here they are again: What exactly is same-sex attraction ordered towards that is not good? What is the “good?” Is the “good” determined by God? Is the claim that same-sex attraction is not ordered towards the goods merely the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality? If so, how can the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality be defended “in a philosophical way?” Is there any good evidence that God, if he exists, disapproves of homosexuality?

Spence,

Take them in order of importance

1. Is there any evidence that God exists?
2. Does God dissaprove of Homosexuality?
3. Is good determined by God?
4. If same sex attraction is not ordered toward good then what is the good?

OK…

Answer to number 1 review and study Aquinas proofs of God…if you don’t believe in God and are not persuaded then I cannot take you to number 2, 3, 4…OK…

 

[CopticChristian]

Do the Catholics on here “respect” the viewpoint that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, that God doesn’t exist, or that Catholicism extols irrationality? I suspect that many Catholics on here, including yourself, engage these viewpoints often even though they aren’t “respected.”

Like I said before, if posters are willing to put forth arguments, I’m willing to consider them. But hunting for posts that may or may not have addressed my questions isn’t something I’m gonna do. If you think my questions have been answered, quote the answers, or just answer them yourself. Stop being lazy

I think we may have very different notions of what “being proven wrong” means

Spence,

You appear to be frustrated. That frustration can be calmed by directing your attention to Fides et Ratio as I suggested…read an excerpt…

The world and all that happens within it, including history and the fate of peoples, are realities to be observed, analysed and assessed with all the resources of reason, but without faith ever being foreign to the process. Faith intervenes not to abolish reason’s
autonomy nor to reduce its scope for action, but solely to bring the human being to understand that in these events it is the God of Israel who acts. Thus the world and the events of history cannot be understood in depth without professing faith in the God who is at work in them. Faith sharpens the inner eye, opening the mind to discover in the flux of events the workings of Providence.

I hope you understand that without Faith, Reason fails to grasp what can be learned from the OHCAC…take your time and stop resisting, listen to what you are being told…it is just a matter of time…

 

[Viviphilia]

What an interesting thread. I’ll try to get caught up by tomorrow. :coffeeread:

 

[ReapReason]

I’m not sure that the Church teaches that it is a disorder, but rather disordered. Homosexuality is a behavior and not a condition. I’ll pray for you and your children.

Same sex attraction is not a behaviour. If it was as simple as that, you wouldn’t hear about people killing themselves because of it.

 

[ReapReason]

As a Father of a Lesbian daughter and a Gay son I think the catholic church teaching is spot on, its the same as what the good priest said, its a disorder.

Secular society would say otherwise but thats just nasty people trying to force their agenda onto the rest of us.

I can’t help notice the similarities between my childrens mother who has all sorts of mental health problems and my gay children.

I conclude that Homosexuality is a disorder of the brain.

I am sorry to hear about your wife. Do you blame her for having children with same sex attractions?

 

[epan]

In 1974 (or so) the American Psychiatric Association held a vote, and in that vote, homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders.

This was not due to new research or findings or conclusions of a scientific nature. Instead, it was due to incessent badgering by the homosexual community.

I can see how activists brought the matter to a vote. Every cause has its advocates.

It would be a disingenuous claim that such a small minority was able to rig the vote of tens of thousands (the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc.), and then more than one hundred thousand (the Amer. Psychological Assoc.) of clinicians and researchers who voted on the matter.

A more plausible explanation is that the condition was reclassified based on the majority opinion, which was based and many hours of clinical practice and observation, by many people and over many years, and also the accumulating research on the subject.

 

[ReapReason]

In 1974 (or so) the American Psychiatric Association held a vote, and in that vote, homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders.

This was not due to new research or findings or conclusions of a scientific nature. Instead, it was due to incessent badgering by the homosexual community.

This is moral relativism at its best. Any and all research into the causes of homosexuality (nurture or nature) are hindered because the APA says that homosexuality is a “natural and positive variation of human sexuality”. Balderdash!

While it is the weak man who would pick on a homosexual for his disability, it is the feeble minded who would accept this clearly abnormal behaviour. Homosexuals deserve our compassion, not our enabling of their self-destructive behaviour.

I think the APA definition of a disorder is not them same thing as the metaphysical concept of disorder. It is not rooted in the idea of essence and form. For example, If somebody has brain damage, it is only called a disorder because it stops them from functioning properly in society (that is the basis upon which they define what is and what is not a disorder); It is not considered a disorder, if by that we mean the human brain is supposed to or ought to function in a particular manner. To think that the brain ought to think or act in a particular way would mean that you are dedicated to the philosophical or religious idea that things are ordered towards a purpose or a goal. This is not how today’s definition of disorder applies, and the State or the APA is not obliged to enforce or recognise philosophical/religious conceptions of human nature and the universe when making laws accept when it is thought to be evidently and pragmatically beneficial to society as a whole.

According the APA’s definition of disorder, it is not a disorder to experience desires towards the same sex because it is not evident that having those attractions will necessarily effect their ability to function in society. The reason for this consensus among the APA community, is because the number of people with SSA that want to be in a homosexual relationship appears to outweigh the number of people who choose to see themselves as inflicted, and therefore it is not profitable for the APA to define it as a disorder, because having same sex attraction does not stop the gay community from functioning properly in society. It only effects those who either try to suppress their attractions or people who for some reason or other disapprove of homosexual behaviour.

Therefore people who live miserable lives because they choose to suppress or do not want SSA are largely ignored because they are thought to be choosing that misery for themselves.

However, if you are an essentialist like me, you will not hold to the APA’s definition of what a disorder is. You will hold to an objective definition of disorder that deals with the intrinsic essence of things. To be born a man or a women is to be essentially ordered toward a heterosexual relationship, because to have a male nature is only meaningful and complimentary in relation to its counterpart which is female. Therefore any attraction that impedes the potential and proper expression of what it means to be male or female is a disorder of the male and female nature. Its a disorder because the males or females lack the attraction which allows them to express their complimentary natures as male or female and instead feel compelled to involve themselves in sexual relationships that do not reflect or fulfil their nature as males and females. In other words they are not being true to their nature when they engage in homosexual relationships.

To put it simply their orientation is not ordered toward the fulfilment of their male and female nature; and that much justifies it being called a disorder by the Church. This much is self evident; but like I said the essentialist concept of disorder and order is not recognised by the APA because their goal is not to dictate how things ought to be, but rather their goal is to support those persons who have conditions that impede their ability to work and function as a unit of society. And while I hold to a different understanding of disorder, I don’t think its the states or the public health systems responsibility to enforce who sleeps with who or have a voice concerning the moral nature of sex accept in those cases where it is evident that there was no freewill involved.

Who we sleep with is the individuals responsibility.

 

[fix]

I’m more interested in seeing whether this so-called “truth” can be defended, in a “philosophical way.”

What exactly is same-sex attraction ordered towards that is not good? What is the “good?” Is the “good” determined by God? Is the claim that same-sex attraction is not ordered towards the goods merely the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality? If so, how can the claim that God disapproves of homosexuality be defended “in a philosophical way?” Is there any good evidence that God, if he exists, disapproves of homosexuality?

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Veritatis splendor

The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God. This capability is grasped by reason in the very being of man, considered in his integral truth, and therefore in his natural inclinations, his motivations and his finalities, which always have a spiritual dimension as well. It is precisely these which are the contents of the natural law and hence that ordered complex of “personal goods” which serve the “good of the person”: the good which is the person himself and his perfection. These are the goods safeguarded by the commandments, which, according to Saint Thomas, contain the whole natural law.130

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.

 

[CopticChristian]

I can see how activists brought the matter to a vote. Every cause has its advocates.

It would be a disingenuous claim that such a small minority was able to rig the vote of tens of thousands (the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc.), and then more than one hundred thousand (the Amer. Psychological Assoc.) of clinicians and researchers who voted on the matter.

A more plausible explanation is that the condition was reclassified based on the majority opinion, which was based and many hours of clinical practice and observation, by many people and over many years, and also the accumulating research on the subject.

Your Plausible conjecture is in error and Plausing you indicate you do not know the explanation in reality.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think the APA definition of a disorder is not them same thing as the metaphysical concept of disorder. It is not rooted in the idea of essence and form. For example, If somebody has brain damage, it is only called a disorder because it stops them from functioning properly in society (that is the basis upon which they define what is and what is not a disorder); It is not considered a disorder, if by that we mean the human brain is supposed to or ought to function in a particular manner. To think that the brain ought to think or act in a particular way would mean that you are dedicated to the philosophical or religious idea that things are ordered towards a purpose or a goal. This is not how today’s definition of disorder applies, and the State or the APA is not obliged to enforce or recognise philosophical/religious conceptions of human nature and the universe when making laws accept when it is thought to be evidently and pragmatically beneficial to society as a whole.

According the APA’s definition of disorder, it is not a disorder to experience desires towards the same sex because it is not evident that having those attractions will necessarily effect their ability to function in society. The reason for this consensus among the APA community, is because the number of people with SSA that want to be in a homosexual relationship appears to outweigh the number of people who choose to see themselves as inflicted, and therefore it is not profitable for the APA to define it as a disorder, because having same sex attraction does not stop the gay community from functioning properly in society. It only effects those who either try to suppress their attractions or people who for some reason or other disapprove of homosexual behaviour.

Therefore people who live miserable lives because they choose to suppress or do not want SSA are largely ignored because they are thought to be choosing that misery for themselves.

However, if you are an essentialist like me, you will not hold to the APA’s definition of what a disorder is. You will hold to an objective definition of disorder that deals with the intrinsic essence of things. To be born a man or a women is to be essentially ordered toward a heterosexual relationship, because to have a male nature is only meaningful and complimentary in relation to its counterpart which is female. Therefore any attraction that impedes the potential and proper expression of what it means to be male or female is a disorder of the male and female nature. Its a disorder because the males or females lack the attraction which allows them to express their complimentary natures as male or female and instead feel compelled to involve themselves in sexual relationships that do not reflect or fulfil their nature as males and females. In other words they are not being true to their nature when they engage in homosexual relationships.

To put it simply their orientation is not ordered toward the fulfilment of their male and female nature; and that much justifies it being called a disorder by the Church. This much is self evident; but like I said the essentialist concept of disorder and order is not recognised by the APA because their goal is not to dictate how things ought to be, but rather their goal is to support those persons who have conditions that impede their ability to work and function as a unit of society. And while I hold to a different understanding of disorder, I don’t think its the states or the public health systems responsibility to enforce who sleeps with who or have a voice concerning the moral nature of sex accept in those cases where it is evident that there was no freewill involved.

Who we sleep with is the individuals responsibility.

This is the Catholic Answers Forum…getting saved from drowning is not the same as getting saved in the Protestant context. The discussion about the APA has nothing to do with the Catechism stating that homosexuality is disordered.

 

[ReapReason]

This is the Catholic Answers Forum…

So?

getting saved from drowning is not the same as getting saved in the Protestant context.

I don’t see what you are getting at here.

The discussion about the APA has nothing to do with the Catechism stating that homosexuality is disordered.

I don’t understand what your problem is.